Beatdown of transgendered in Baltimore, MD McDonalds

[jillio]

Now what are you talking about?

What is it exactly that you don't understand? Think "mitigating circumstances". You seem to want to reduce everything to black and white, and life and the law don't work that way.

 

[jillio]

Yeah, I got that, but I'm still puzzled if jillio meant she was the abused or she just means someone in general. The start of the sentence "Having been" can refer to the speaker in past tense!

I was referring in general. And the point is, someone who has been abused has mitigating circumstances that come into play not only to explain, but to figure into the sentencing for their crime. Someone acting purely on hatred of another's skin color or sexual orientation does not. Neither crime is justified, unless the abused woman can be shown to be in immediate danger, but one is certainly more understandable a reaction than the other. Therefore, the law includes mitigating circumstances in deciding degree of charge and sentence.

In other words, a hate crime is not justifiable under any circumstances. A crime committed under the influence of abused women's syndrome is still to be punished, but the circumstances surrounding it do, and should, impact the sentence.

If you will go back and read the post to which I was responding it should all be very clear.

 

[shel90]

Went to DC with my daughter's Girl Scout troop for one of the big anniversaries of Girl Scouting so the place was mobbed with girls. Near the Lincoln Memorial, we shared the mens bathroom. Of course, we didn't make the men wait too long for their turn. As soon as a guy showed up, we had him wait until all the girls were out and then let him/them in.

I know I've used "men's" bathrooms (single toilet/sink) when I've really had to go...but you know how messy men can be...

I have done the same and I cannot count how many times I felt like gagging while doing my thing in the men's bathroom.

Even my own two men at home treat my bathrooms as a public restroom. It pisssses me off. I have bawled them again and again...things have improved. For now anyway.

 

[Reba]

What is it exactly that you don't understand? Think "mitigating circumstances". You seem to want to reduce everything to black and white, and life and the law don't work that way.

Since mitigating circumstances have been available all along as part of sentencing, then hate crimes aren't necessary.

You've proven my case, thank you.

 

[jillio]

Since mitigating circumstances have been available all along as part of sentencing, then hate crimes aren't necessary.

You've proven my case, thank you.

The hate is a mitigating circumstance. That is why it is used to increase sentencing.

 

[Reba]

I have done the same and I cannot count how many times I felt like gagging while doing my thing in the men's bathroom.

It's the porta potties that I hate to use. Ugh!

Even my own two men at home treat my bathrooms as a public restroom. It pisssses me off. I have bawled them again and again...things have improved. For now anyway.

Really? I've never had that problem with Hubby.

I like your word choice for how it makes you feel (apropos to the topic).

 

[Reba]

The hate is a mitigating circumstance. That is why it is used to increase sentencing.

Mitigating circumstance, not hate law.

 

[Reba]

Go back and read the post I made, in relation to the previous several posts. My intent and meaning was obvious.

Your intent may be obvious but still illogical and irrelevant.

 

[jillio]

Mitigating circumstance, not hate law.[/QUOTE

So, you don't think that in a crime that is committed with hate as its causative factor that hate is not a mitigating circumstance? After all, hate crime law is in existence to increase sentencing based on the fact that hate was the inducement.

But maybe you are right. Why should we be concerned with righting years of social injustice heaped on oppressed groups? Let the faggots and the transexuals and the Blacks and the Jews fend for themselves. Why should they have special consideration? They are not even morally just.

**end sarcasm**

 

[jillio]

Your intent may be obvious but still illogical and irrelevant.

Nope, not illogical nor relevent, unless you are totally against consideration being given to groups that have been historically attacked for superficial reasons...like lynching black men simply because they were black, or beating a gay man into death simply because he is gay.

 

[Reba]

So, you don't think that in a crime that is committed with hate as its causative factor that hate is not a mitigating circumstance?

I never, never, never said that. I said it could be a mitigating factor in sentencing. I said it didn't need to be a hate LAW.

After all, hate crime law is in existence to increase sentencing based on the fact that hate was the inducement.

A separate law for that isn't necessary; that's why mitigating factors are allowed as part of sentencing. We already have a system in place for that.

But maybe you are right. Why should we be concerned with righting years of social injustice heaped on oppressed groups? Let the faggots and the transexuals and the Blacks and the Jews fend for themselves. Why should they have special consideration? They are not even morally just.

**end sarcasm**

You are so far off base you're not even on the field.

Since my adolescent years, I've been a supporter of equal rights in the courts for everyone. As a kid reading To Kill a Mockingbird, I was incensed at the injustice it revealed.

As you recall, there was a time when a black woman could be raped without punishment for her rapists and a black men could be lynched without punishment for his killers. Remember how police and courts would look the other way when members of minority groups were victimized? For generations they went without any consideration at all in the courts. Equal justice was long overdue.

The best thing we can do now is to show the haters and bigots that violence will not be tolerated against anyone, no matter what "group" they belong to. Each individual is deserving of equal justice in America simply by belonging to the human race. Each person who is injured by another shouldn't have to prove that the perpetrator hated the victim. Each victim deserves full justice whether the perpetrator hated, loved, or felt nothing for the victim.

No victims should have to "fend for themselves." They should all have the right to get justice in the courts.

And they shouldn't have to wait for special "hate crimes" legislation to get it.

 

[Reba]

Nope, not illogical nor relevent, unless you are totally against consideration being given to groups that have been historically attacked for superficial reasons...like lynching black men simply because they were black, or beating a gay man into death simply because he is gay.

The comparing of the World War II military tribunals for crimes against humanity and American hate crime legislation is illogical and irrelevant. One has nothing to do with the other. You're just trying to rile up emotionalism.

I'm totally against anyone being lynched or beaten to death. Those who commit those crimes should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The courts can't make right historical injustices but they can ensure that today's victims get their justice.

 

[Jiro]

I had a same thought about hate law. A judge has discretion to impose however he sees it fit.

Murder's a murder. Same thing to me. Color of skin, sexual orientation, religious belief, etc... it shouldn't be a mitigating factor in deciding how harsh one should be punished. He is being sentenced by judge.... a human being with common sense and logic to decide whether or not should he be punished to the fullest extent of the law based on the nature of his crime.

 

[jillio]

I never, never, never said that. I said it could be a mitigating factor in sentencing. I said it didn't need to be a hate LAW.


A separate law for that isn't necessary; that's why mitigating factors are allowed as part of sentencing. We already have a system in place for that.


You are so far off base you're not even on the field.

Since my adolescent years, I've been a supporter of equal rights in the courts for everyone. As a kid reading To Kill a Mockingbird, I was incensed at the injustice it revealed.

As you recall, there was a time when a black woman could be raped without punishment for her rapists and a black men could be lynched without punishment for his killers. Remember how police and courts would look the other way when members of minority groups were victimized? For generations they went without any consideration at all in the courts. Equal justice was long overdue.

The best thing we can do now is to show the haters and bigots that violence will not be tolerated against anyone, no matter what "group" they belong to. Each individual is deserving of equal justice in America simply by belonging to the human race. Each person who is injured by another shouldn't have to prove that the perpetrator hated the victim. Each victim deserves full justice whether the perpetrator hated, loved, or felt nothing for the victim.

No victims should have to "fend for themselves." They should all have the right to get justice in the courts.

And they shouldn't have to wait for special "hate crimes" legislation to get it.

Oh, wow! You read To Kill A Mockingbird? How impressive.

And the right to justice in the courts is what hate crime laws are about.

 

[Jiro]

Oh, wow! You read To Kill A Mockingbird? How impressive.

And the right to justice in the courts is what hate crime laws are about.

selective justice.

 

[Reba]

Oh, wow! You read To Kill A Mockingbird? How impressive.

I was a kid, and it made an impression on me.

Yes, I realize you were being snarky.

And the right to justice in the courts is what hate crime laws are about.

No, that's not correct.

The right to justice isn't dependent on a motive of hate.

The victim has the right to justice, whether or not the perpetrator hates the victim.

Why restrict justice?

 

[jillio]

I never, never, never said that. I said it could be a mitigating factor in sentencing. I said it didn't need to be a hate LAW.


A separate law for that isn't necessary; that's why mitigating factors are allowed as part of sentencing. We already have a system in place for that.


You are so far off base you're not even on the field.

Since my adolescent years, I've been a supporter of equal rights in the courts for everyone. As a kid reading To Kill a Mockingbird, I was incensed at the injustice it revealed.

As you recall, there was a time when a black woman could be raped without punishment for her rapists and a black men could be lynched without punishment for his killers. Remember how police and courts would look the other way when members of minority groups were victimized? For generations they went without any consideration at all in the courts. Equal justice was long overdue.

The best thing we can do now is to show the haters and bigots that violence will not be tolerated against anyone, no matter what "group" they belong to. Each individual is deserving of equal justice in America simply by belonging to the human race. Each person who is injured by another shouldn't have to prove that the perpetrator hated the victim. Each victim deserves full justice whether the perpetrator hated, loved, or felt nothing for the victim.

No victims should have to "fend for themselves." They should all have the right to get justice in the courts.

And they shouldn't have to wait for special "hate crimes" legislation to get it.

If you want it to be a mitigating factor, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it being qualified by law, any more than assault and assault with a deadly weapon are distinquished by circumstance, or robbery and armed robbery are distinquished from each other, or any other degree and circumstance is distinquished by law. When it is distinquished by law, it allows for more consistent application.

 

[Jiro]

If you want it to be a mitigating factor, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it being qualified by law, any more than assault and assault with a deadly weapon are distinquished by circumstance, or robbery and armed robbery are distinquished from each other, or any other degree and circumstance is distinquished by law. When it is distinquished by law, it allows for more consistent application.

but the thing is...

assault and assault with a deadly weapon. robbery and armed robbery. it is distinguished from each other based on one's action and the severity of it.... not one's sexual orientation or skin color or religious belief.

 

[sallylou]

Jiro, each crime has a requirement of intent. There are different kinds of intent. No crimes can exist that don't require intent.

However you add hate into the equation, it's still what the jury reads that counts.

Judges don't have as much discretion as you think. Judges have special training and are accountable for their decisions via appeal. The only exception I can think of is a family law judge. Lots of discretion.

 

[jillio]

selective justice.

Elaborate.